Want to fuck with us Americans?? MK-44 mini-gun test fire

[dr.chimps]

You're a moron. The US has never invaded a country with the intent to turn take it over and make it "ours".  Have we toppled regimes with the intent of installing a government friendlier to us? Yes.

Have we ever simply invaded a country with the intent of conquering it? No.

Idiot.

Pretty much the same thing, Kissinger.

[Shockwave]

Pretty much the same thing, Kissinger.

Yeah, poor wording.
My point was we dont go into other countries with the intent of adding them to our "Empire".

[musclecenter]

Don't fuck with Americans

[honest]

Real question is will they hold that power as they relinquish economic superiority to the chinese over the next twenty years, we live in interesting times, China and Russia definatly starting to flex their muscles in an alliance of force that is weaker comparison to the NATO alliance, but grows with each conflict, three years ago Syria would have been toast by now.

[daddy8ball]

It sure wasn't Tokyo..

Tokyo was targeted to be next if Japan did not surrender.
http://airminded.org/2009/08/19/the-third-atomic-bomb-tokyo-19-august-1945/

[King Shizzo]

Real question is will they hold that power as they relinquish economic superiority to the chinese over the next twenty years, we live in interesting times, China and Russia definatly starting to flex their muscles in an alliance of force that is weaker comparison to the NATO alliance, but grows with each conflict, three years ago Syria would have been toast by now.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit If China and Russia are planning something down the road.

[GigantorX]

Peasants dedicated to a cause, with intl backing, a variety of insurgency fronts at their disposal, and a modicum of military training, but peasants all the same. If you want to point out a flaw in the picture then do so directly rather than 'you are ignorant!' speak.

The NVA was the major fighting force during the war, but that's not to say the V.C. were a bit player.

Either way, the V.C. were slaughtered during the Tet Offensive in 1968 and ceased to be a truly effective fighting force. The war shifted to more of a convential-style North-South engagement there-after with the NVA being the primary driver. That's a common misconception about the war, that there were peasants armed with BB-guns routing U.S./ARVN units all over the country, it wasn't the case at all.

[Tito24]

it was Yoko Ono

[dr.chimps]

Yeah, poor wording.
My point was we dont go into other countries with the intent of adding them to our "Empire".

The Spanish-American War springs to mind as an example. Economic and political subversion is always to be preferred, if only to lessen the 'costs' of such enterprises.

[mass243]

No thanks.

You're OK but I prefer my fuks lil' slimmer.

[orion]

Indeed. They were going to follow up the bombing of Hiroshima with an immediate firebombing of the city. Just to make sure. This was eventually voted down because they wanted the results of the atomic bomb to speak for themselves.

Also, the third target set after Hiroshima and Nagasaki was Tokyo.

Congratulations, you guys nuked a city full of women and children and old men, when  Japan was in it's death throes.  Anyone with an analytical mind knows the military and the politicians wanted to see just how much damage these weapons could do to an actual city full of people.  It is one of the darkest days in American history, certainly nothing to brag about. The only country in the world to drop nuclear bombs on a civilian population and now they dictate who can and cannot have nukes.

Back to Afghanistan, when th u.s. pulls out what was really accomplished?  The Karzai government will have to form some kind of coalition government with the Taliban.  That is a fact.  The hated enemy will be part of the legitimate government and the US will have to sit across the table from them sooner or later.  My head spins from all the aid we are going to give them for the next twenty or so years

[GigantorX]

The Spanish-American War springs to mind as an example. Economic and political subversion is always to be preferred, if only to lessen the 'costs' of such enterprises.

Couldn't you add Hawaii, Philippines and possibly even early Cuba to that list? Probably much of 19th century central America/Caribbean?

[Tapeworm]

Congratulations, you guys nuked a city full of women and children and old men, when  Japan was in it's death throes.  Anyone with an analytical mind knows the military and the politicians wanted to see just how much damage these weapons could do to an actual city full of people.  It is one of the darkest days in American history, certainly nothing to brag about. The only country in the world to drop nuclear bombs on a civilian population and now they dictate who can and cannot have nukes.

Back to Afghanistan, when th u.s. pulls out what was really accomplished?  The Karzai government will have to form some kind of coalition government with the Taliban.  That is a fact.  The hated enemy will be part of the legitimate government and the US will have to sit across the table from them sooner or later.  My head spins from all the aid we are going to give them for the next twenty or so years

"Fuck yeah!"

[syntaxmachine]

The NVA was the major fighting force during the war, but that's not to say the V.C. were a bit player.

Either way, the V.C. were slaughtered during the Tet Offensive in 1968 and ceased to be a truly effective fighting force. The war shifted to more of a convential-style North-South engagement there-after with the NVA being the primary driver. That's a common misconception about the war, that there were peasants armed with BB-guns routing U.S./ARVN units all over the country, it wasn't the case at all.

Very well. But I never argued that the VC were winning conventional military battles against the U.S.; I said that they "beat us" and our superior military, which is still true in the ultimate sense because we were unable to achieve our essentially political goals which were the ostensible reason for our intervention (we didn't just go there to kill as many North Vietnamese as possible, after all). Take your example: the Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the VC yet ironically ended up being a propaganda victory for the North that fed a major backlash in the states and hastened our withdrawal.

I think these facts in conjunction with the results in Afghanistan still support my point that a military, no matter how strong, has serious limitations when it comes to these sorts of operations and that we can't just blame particular tactics, ROE, or what have you, for their failure.

[GigantorX]

Congratulations, you guys nuked a city full of women and children and old men, when  Japan was in it's death throes.  Anyone with an analytical mind knows the military and the politicians wanted to see just how much damage these weapons could do to an actual city full of people.  It is one of the darkest days in American history, certainly nothing to brag about. The only country in the world to drop nuclear bombs on a civilian population and now they dictate who can and cannot have nukes.

Back to Afghanistan, when th u.s. pulls out what was really accomplished?  The Karzai government will have to form some kind of coalition government with the Taliban.  That is a fact.  The hated enemy will be part of the legitimate government and the US will have to sit across the table from them sooner or later.  My head spins from all the aid we are going to give them for the next twenty or so years

Hindsight is 20/20. They would not have surrendered even under continued conventional attacks, that includes firebombings as well. It is certainly not "one of the darkest days in American history". Instead of firebombing every single city in the country 2x over we simply dropped 2 nuclear weapons on two cities. We didn't tap dance around, the war needed end, to do so you take the gloves off and use everything at your disposal to finish the war as quickly as possible. I believe that using those 2 bombs probably saved more lives than it took. Showing the weapon off to the Soviets and to let the world see American might didn't hurt either.

And the above is simply one mans opinion. But when you say"Well, the Japanese were finished, we didn't need the A-Bomb", you say so 60+ years after the fact. The worlds surveillance, communication and intelligence technology and capability was in the stone age compared to what we have now or even 20 years ago. Plus the Japanese only demonstrated during every battle that they would fight to death and never, ever surrender. That can't be over stated.

[Radical Plato]

Americans are doomed! That much is for sure, and due to the strongest propaganda system in the World, the average American idiot will be the last to know, only then will their illusions become apparent, their brainwashing diluted and their attitude corrected!  The Collapse of America will be good for the average American, and even better for the rest of the world, who knows, other nations may even begin to like some of you Freaks!

[GigantorX]

Very well. But I never argued that the VC were winning conventional military battles against the U.S.; I said that they "beat us" and our superior military, which is still true in the ultimate sense because we were unable to achieve our essentially political goals which were the ostensible reason for our intervention (we didn't just go there to kill as many North Vietnamese as possible, after all). Take your example: the Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the VC yet ironically ended up being a propaganda victory for the North that fed a major backlash in the states and hastened out withdrawal.

I think these facts in conjunction with the results in Afghanistan still support my point that a military, no matter how strong, has serious limitations when it comes to these sorts of operations and that we can't just blame particular tactics, ROE, or what have you, for their failure.

Oh, I'm not arguing those points, especially Afghanistan. The military is not a cure all when participating in global politics.

As for Vietnam, in the end, the North was very close to collapsing militarily. 20+ years of war will take its toll no matter who supports you. I would argue that after Tet, if LBJ didn't telegraph our withdrawal to the North and instead went on the attack without withdrawing American forces we would be having a much different conversation at this point. But that goes back to your point about politics and the military.

I could talk about this for days straight. Great thread so far.

[orion]

  .

    Plus the Japanese only demonstrated during every battle that they would fight to death and never, ever surrender. That can't be over stated.
[/quote]

I agree with that statement 100%.

[coltrane]

 One Bomb could end their entire existence and effectively erase their entire civilization off of the history books.

qft

[Tapeworm]

I could talk about this for days straight. Great thread so far.

Tell me about Tet then, GX.  I didn't know it was considered a failed offensive.  I heard it demonstrated the ability of the NVA & VC to mobilize a nationwide attack and the failure of our intelligence to get a whiff of it.  With all its associated issues like movement of munitions, extensive planning and communications, didn't it show the enemy to be a lot better organized than we gave them credit for?  And us to be more poorly informed than we would have liked to believe?

[syntaxmachine]

Americans are doomed! That much is for sure, and due to the strongest propaganda system in the World, the average American idiot will be the last to know, only then will their illusions become apparent, their brainwashing diluted and their attitude corrected!  The Collapse of America will be good for the average American, and even better for the rest of the world, who knows, other nations may even begin to like some of you Freaks!

Nice pontificating but I think it has only a tenuous connection to reality. How beneficial to the world economy in particular would an American collapse be? Was the crisis of 2009-2011 to everyone else's benefit?

[syntaxmachine]

There's some talk on here of China's apparently inevitable rise and subsequent displacement of the U.S. as sole superpower. The media (and even some scholars) hyped this idea up a bit so it's understandable if you think it's reasonable ... despite the fact that it isn't.

The U.S. economy is still triple the size of the Chinese economy, and this simple fact masks immense disparities in, for example, per capita GDP (it is abysmally low for the Chinese). Also, the projected Chinese growth is just that: projected. In reality, the Chinese are in a dangerous situation where lots of civil unrest is liable to break out when economic growth slows, as it surely will. They currently have a housing bubble of their own, a huge amount of corruption,  markets almost nobody in the outside world can access (making their future as a financial center ala NY or London dim), and a political system -- with a politburo of 9 or so people that think they can rule over more than a billion -- that no one is sure is compatible with the economic reforms that will be needed in the future.

On the military front, there is simply no competition to be had. The U.S. spends an extraordinary amount of money on procuring advanced weapons, on training and equipping its troops, and has a virtual monopoly on R&D. All of this results in the best military on earth, including a navy larger by tonnage than the rest of the world combined (with over 2,300 ships), including 11 aircraft carriers (China has approximately 0, and that is not slated to change anytime soon).





In short, China has an extraordinarily long way to go to usurp the U.S. as world superpower; its economy is only going to grow as projected with extremely optimistic assumptions and even if this occurs, it will be perhaps a century behind the U.S. when it comes to military capability and financial competence.

[DroppingPlates]

Where would Yanks be without their weapons? 

[GigantorX]

Where would Yanks be without their weapons? 

If it wasn't for the Yanks and their weapons in a few crucial times in history the world would be a very different place, indeed.

[Kwon_2]

There's some talk on here of China's apparently inevitable rise and subsequent displacement of the U.S. as sole superpower. The media (and even some scholars) hyped this idea up a bit so it's understandable if you think it's reasonable ... despite the fact that it isn't.

The U.S. economy is still triple the size of the Chinese economy, and this simple fact masks immense disparities in, for example, per capita GDP (it is abysmally low for the Chinese). Also, the projected Chinese growth is just that: projected. In reality, the Chinese are in a dangerous situation where lots of civil unrest is liable to break out when economic growth slows, as it surely will. They currently have a housing bubble of their own, a huge amount of corruption,  markets almost nobody in the outside world can access (making their future as a financial center ala NY or London dim), and a political system -- with a politburo of 9 or so people that think they can rule over more than a billion -- that no one is sure is compatible with the economic reforms that will be needed in the future.

On the military front, there is simply no competition to be had. The U.S. spends an extraordinary amount of money on procuring advanced weapons, on training and equipping its troops, and in fact has a virtual monopoly on R&D. All of this results in the best military on the earth, including a navy larger by tonnage than the rest of the world combined (including over 2,300 ships), including 11 aircraft carriers (China has approximately 0, and that is not slated to change anytime soon).





In short, China has an extraordinarily long way to go to usurp the U.S. as world superpower; its economy is only going to grow as projected with extremely optimistic assumptions and even if this occurs, it will be perhaps a century behind the U.S. military and financial competence.

Isn't China harvesting Helium-3 on the Moon though?